Transfers of positions between the various classes and classification of new positions.

Provision for separate eligible lists for the several divisions of the State under the Department of Agriculture.

Extension and revision of existing eligible lists to conform to the new law.

Adoption of new rules, regulations and schemes for the State Civil Service in accordance with the new law.

Relinquishment of jurisdiction over minor and local courts in

cities.

MUNICIPAL CIVIL SERVICE.

During the year civil service regulations have been approved by the Commission for the cities of New York, Brooklyn, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Binghamton, Cohoes, Albany, Rensselaer, Yonkers, Long Island City, Poughkeepsie and Elmira. This list includes nearly all the larger cities of the State and some of the smaller ones. It does not, however, include all cities in the State as strictly speaking under the law it should. Delinquents have been notified of their duty and it is confidently expected that in reasonable time every city in the State will be brought under the new civil service law. At the same time the Commission desires to explain that because of the few employes in the service the smaller cities have less practical interest in the Civil Service Law and rules than the larger ones, and for that reason have been allowed some indulgence in their neglect to promptly comply with the law.

DEPARTMENT WORK ELSEWHERE NOTED.

The Commission can here refer simply in a prefatory way to its work. For details as a whole it refers to the full and credit

able report of Chief Examiner Fowler, as well as the faithful and intelligently tabulated statement of Secretary Angle, to be found elsewhere.

IN CONCLUSION.

The year's work appears to have been a practical advance. The civil service system is in the State Constitution, and is approved by the majority and all that is necessary in our opinion to its full acceptance is its rigid and just application under the Constitution on equitable and practical lines.

WILLARD A. COBB.

GEO. P. LORD.

To the Governor:

NEW YORK, March 15, 1898.

I beg to respectfully present a report of my reasons for disagreeing with the majority of the members of the Civil Service Commission in their regular annual report to you.

Having had for over thirty-five years some experience in the civil service and in the methods adopted for its regulation, I reached certain conclusions as to the existence of abuses in that service and as to the most feasible method of removing them. This method, so far as principles are concerned, was that embodied in the law of this State and the rules under it, as they stood before May 15, 1897. The amendatory law passed on that date was in many respects a signal departure from the funda mental provisions of the antecedent statute. While I did not disguise from you my doubts of the efficacy of the new law, I sedulously aided you, as indeed was my official duty, in drafting rules for its administration and enforcement, and endeavored, so far as I could, to ensure a fair trial of the law and rules. I have

refrained from any public criticism or comment upon the results of this trial until now, when it is my statutory duty, as a member of the Commission, to report to you, who have upon all occasions freely accorded to me the privilege of an independent and candid expression of opinion.

The avowed purpose of the framers of the civil service act of May 15, 1897, was to secure a more effective enforcement of the ninth section of the fifth article of the Constitution, enjoining appointments for approved merit and fitness, and was thus a condemnation in that respect of the vital principles of the previous act that it amended. Those who had given any special attention to that branch of public policy, known as civil service reform, saw in advance that the proposed law would not serve the declared ends of its supporters.

The movement in this country for civil service reform originated prior to 1871, and on March 3d of that year found lodgment in a brief but comprehensive section of an United States statute, subsequently enlarged and amended by the act of January 16, 1883, and on May 4th of the same year an almost identical lawmutatis mutandis-was enacted in this State. All of this legislation was based upon the universal experience in all countries and times that as a general proposition it is unsafe to confer upon administrative officers, where they were exposed to partisan or personal influences, an unrestrained power of appointment; unsafe because such power not only might be exercised without paramount consideration for the public interests, but that in the vast majority of cases it was so exercised. These abuses of power had produced several evils, the most serious of which were, first, the degradation of the civil service by its subordination to partisan ends or personal advantage; second, the practical exclusion of a

moiety, at least, of the citizens from any participation in public employment; third, the demoralization of our political methods by the use of the civil service as a means of bribery or reward in party warfare.

The objective point of the several laws enacted to curb these abuses was such a restraint of the appointing power as would prevent, so far as practicable, its exercise for any other purpose than the public interest. These laws have been in operation in the United States service for over fourteen years without amendment and in our State service for nearly the same period without any amendments, except to enforce the provisions of such statutes, to extend them to the service of cities and to confer certain privileges on the veterans of the late war. The rules under which these laws were administered, though originally considered as tentative, were never radically changed. In minor points they have been modified from time to time as experience indicated and they were subject to further modifications as added experience might suggest. The primary principle of these rules was the limitation of appointment to the selection from the three persons standing highest upon an eligible list of those whose relative merit and fitness above a certain minimum standard had been ascertained by an open competitive examination held by the Civil Service Commission. This limitation reduced the opportunities for favoritism to the lowest point deemed possible, since a restriction to the one person standing highest would annul the officer's discretion and responsibility for the appointment, while the three names gave a discretionary range that has by long trial been approved as sufficient, particularly since it was supplemented by appointment for a probationary period only before a permanent tenure was given. This probation was an essential

1

part of the examination and has in practice shown how satisfactory the antecedent procedure was since the number of those who were dropped from service during or at the end of the probationary period has been so inconsiderable that it may be disregarded. Even if the deficiencies of an appointee were not disclosed until after this period, the power of prompt removal could be exercised.

This system in which the officer had no participation in the examination until the three most eligible candidates were certified to him preserved every element of fair competition and equitable rights, and so was a full compliance with the constitutional provision, which in fact had been framed upon the text and ap proved administration of this very method during an antecedeat period of a dozen years. Within this same period there had been criticisms, more or less well founded, regarding the details of the rules or of their administration, such as touching the too scholastic character of the examinations or their failure to test amply practical ability or personal character, etc.-all of which defects. could be readily cured. It is an indisputable fact that there was no general public expression of dissatisfaction with the law and the rules as they stood before the enactment of May 15, 1897. The latter statute has been in force in all its features since September 15th last-a period of over six months-during which its practical operation has sustained the validity of many of the adverse criticisms upon it, made in advance.

The new law rests upon that very assumption, that officers will exercise the power of appointment with an eye single to the public welfare, that existed before any civil service, laws were enacted and the results of which had made such laws necessary. It in terms differentiates merit and fitness, qualities theretofore